CHill Runs wrote:
I would say that Spiroc doesn't come from primarily a physiological perspective, not that he isn't scientifically oriented. He certainly has experience making hypothesis and testing the results and in that way he is scientifically oriented.
This is what I was trying to get at in the above post about CTL and TSS. It's a very different approach to training than most runners (myself included!) are accustomed to. That's also why it's so fascinating. It's different and it works.
As runners we've been conditioned to think primarily physiologically. Any training argument that Jack Daniels, Steve Magness, or Pete Pfitzinger makes, for example, is primarily about physiology and NOT load accumulation.
When Spiroc is comparing 3 sub threshold a week to a Jack Daniels plan, his argument isn't about vLT, VO2 max, Aerobic threshold, economy or anything physiologically oriented. It's basically that a JD plan beats you up too much for a lower load. In the long term you can accumulate more load more consistently with 3 sub threshold runs. If you're trying to PR in 8 weeks, a JD plan will probably be better. But in 8 months, the argument goes, 3 sub threshold is way better because you create much more load and you can do it over and over again (more on that later).
That doesn't mean Spiroc isn't scientifically minded, it just means he's thinking about it from a different angle. This is much more natural for cyclists because power is such a reliable metric. This is another reason why pace based TSS is important. Although it isn't perfect, at least it's load measure that's relative to performance, where as heart rate based TSS (physiologically oriented) is an indirect measure that will have much less correlation to performance. Spiroc and cyclists in this camp seem to be thinking more in terms of work in, work out, numbers in numbers out, not "what physiological system am I working on." Do more work, smarter, and you get better.
In this approach, there isn't a lot of the other stuff we commonly see in programs: taxing long runs, up weeks and down weeks, peaking, large tapers, strides, race pace focus, periodization etc. The reasoning why this program doesn't include those basically boils down to how much load those methods create, in how much time, requiring how much recovery.
This doesn't mean that physiology isn't important! I would be very interested in all of the tests mentioned above to see what's happening 'under the hood' with this approach. This approach uses physiology to control training intensity. Rather than use physiology as a tool to discern what workout uses what physiological system, this approach just uses it to ensure we're not overdoing it.
Easy runs at <70% HR Max and Sub T under 4. mm (generalizing here) is more about the recovery needed than the stimulus provided. Threshold runs at 4.2 will provide negligible load compared to 3.8. But over weeks and weeks of tipping over the threshold, fatigue accumulates and it's no longer sustainable. The lactate testing and easy runs are about ensuring there is a positive load to recovery needed ratio. Stay on the positive side of that for a while and the fitness will come.
Thank you for explaining this clearly! I liked your bolded parts--and the repeatability of it is great. I can see why this doesn't require all the weird peaks/tapers/periodization of JD. It's the same workouts, over and over. Sirpoc has mentioned his Strava is the same each week for the most part.